Em article of intriante title, ‘From grace until injection into the testa? Ten myths of critical literature and advocacy of evidence-based health judicialisation’, Pedro Fortes criticise the criticism of the judiciary of health. Its central argument is that the critical studies of health justice would spread ten myths about the actions of the judiciary in relation to requests for medical treatment. The article calls ‘myths’ because they would not be based on evidence but rather ‘theoretical assertions, untested hypotheses, suggested speculation or ideological opinions’ (FORTES, 2021, p. 229). The frank debate, in which differences are clearly and directly exposed, is always welcome. This keeps the academic environment alive, vibrant and useful. This is the spirit of this comment of reaction to the article in Fortes. I do not intend to put forward any argument or refute each point with which I disagree with that text. There have been and will be other fora for this. I would simply like to point out that this article focuses on two fallls. First, the ‘speedy of spantles’, as it tallies with a distorted and impoverished version of what he calls ‘critical literature’ rather than with what that literature actually claims. Second, it makes use of a type of argumentum ad ignore that it regards the lack of evidence that something is true as evidence that it is false, and still claims that there is no evidence to which it has not paid due attention.